The Daily - Fear and Fury: The Fallout From Trump’s Tariffs

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

The reverberations from President Trump’s new global tariffs have rocked financial markets and world capitals. American stocks have plunged, and foreign leaders have issued forceful condemnations.The Times journalists Michael Barbaro, Peter Goodman, Natalie Kitroeff and Jeanna Smialek sit down to try to make sense of Mr. Trump’s strategy and its consequences.Guest:Peter S. Goodman, who covers the global economy for The New York Times.Natalie Kitroeff, the Mexico City bureau chief for The New York Times.Jeanna Smialek, the Brussels bureau chief for The New York Times.Background reading: Read about how Mr. Trump’s one-for-one tariff plan threatens the global economy.The trade war set off “max pessimism” in the global markets.The tariffs have widened the chasm between allies and Washington.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Scott McIntyre for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

President Trump's announcement of universal tariffs on the whole world, including the European Union, is a major blow to the world economy. For Australia, these tariffs are not unexpected, but let me be clear, they are totally unwarranted. The system of global trade anchored on the United States that Canada has relied on since the end of the Second World War, is over. The consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe. Well, this is a tragedy. It is also the new reality. We're coming on the air because the stock market is plummeting in response to President Trump's escalating trade war.

The Dow, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ were all down more than 3% at one point. Retail stocks in particular really selling off. Nike, Adidas, Lululemon. Global markets are also taking a hit. My fear, I've got to say, my fear is that stocks are down and they stay down for a protracted period of time. From New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily.

On Thursday, the fallout from President Trump's sweeping new global tariffs reverberated across financial markets and foreign capitals, spreading fear and in many cases fury. Today, we try to make sense of Trump's strategy and its consequences with three of my colleagues, Peter Goodman, Natalie Kichef, and Gina Smilick. It's Friday, April 4th. So colleagues, welcome to the Roundtable. Peter Goodman, thank you for being here in the studio. Great to be here. Natalie, Kitroef, thank you for being here in the studio. Great to be here. Natalie Kittaroff, thank you for joining us from Mexico City.

Thanks for having me. And Gina Smollick, I don't know where in Europe you are. I am in Brussels, sunny Brussels. Thank you for joining us from sunny Brussels. We have assembled the three of you because you have tremendous experience covering the three regions of the world that are at the center of this historic and historically disruptive moment. Trump's sweeping global plans for tariffs, what he's calling Liberation Day for the U.S.

Peter, you have covered Asia for years and years, for the time you lived there for many years. Gina, you are covering Europe. Natalie, you are our economic authority on Mexico, but really in some sense, North America. So my first question to the three of you, with 24 hours to reflect on what the president just announced, how big a deal is this? I want to start with you, Peter.

It's honestly difficult to convey how big a deal this is. This is an astonishing development. It is a development that takes direct aim at the mode of globalization that has dominated most of our lives. I mean, we have grown up in a world where we've been invited to imagine that place really doesn't matter. If you've got container ships that can bridge the oceans

and you send factory production wherever it's cheapest or most efficient, then factory in Ohio is the functional equivalent of a factory in China. And whatever you think about these tariffs and how they're going to play and whether they're going to fix the problems that have popped up and emerged from trade policy, this is clearly taking direct aim at that sense of place isn't supposed to matter. And that entire era.

That's right. And where we essentially make policy on the strength of the argument that the consumer must be served and the consumer wants cheap stuff and cheap stuff has in the last few decades come in from places like China, Mexico as well. And this is a reorientation of policy that at least on its face is about, we got to make stuff in the United States. There are a lot of reasons to doubt whether it'll work, whether it will satisfy the people it's aimed at satisfying, but that at least in broad strokes is the policy.

Globalization's bad, making stuff at home is good. Natali, how big? I mean, I was going to say, Michael, that you might forgive the three of us. I think we're all either current or former business reporters on this roundtable for being really worked up about all of this. You might think that we're, you know, a little bit excited because this is our sandbox that

we play in, but it's a huge deal. It's not just a huge deal for markets, which we're seeing a massive reaction in global markets, but it's a huge deal for the way that Americans live their lives. As Peter is saying. We're talking about a total reconfiguration of the trade order, and that is not just an econ nerd concern. Right. So, it's huge.

Gina, any argument that this is not a big a deal as these hyperbolic colleagues of yours are claiming it is? I'm joking. No, no argument at all. I think this is a massive deal. I had someone earlier actually tell me that this is one of those before and after days. You know, we're going to remember the world before today and we're going to remember the world after it. And it just sort of, you know, this is a moment that is going to fundamentally reorder the global economy

potentially. And I think at the same time, I mean, I'm sitting in Europe right now where this is part of what is really a multi-pronged assault on the transatlantic relationship. This is part of a sort of decoupling that is happening between the US and its trading partner, the European Union, which has, you know, for 80 years been among its closest allies.

And so I think it's hard to overstate what this means diplomatically and not just economically. Okay. So now that we have absorbed the bigness of this all, I want to ask you all to help make sense of this as a strategy. And Peter, one of the things becomes very clear when you look at these tariffs is that as universal as they appear, they are seemingly pretty targeted at a familiar trade foe of the Trump administration, and that is Asia. Look, it's always been about China principally, and that's because China is the world's factory. It's the place where enormous amounts of investment went, chasing cheaper wages.

In the free trade era, yeah. In the free trade era, I mean, China has become the dominant purveyor of all kinds of things, from auto parts to chemicals to sneakers and clothing and exercise bikes. So if you come at things as Trump does from the standpoint that a bilateral trade deficit, which is a fancy way of saying, we buy more stuff from you than you buy from us. If you come at it from the standpoint that that's bad and a sign that you're getting ripped off, which is a concept that economists take real issue with, then China stands out as an offender.

But it's not just China. Look at this chart. Vietnam now hit with a new tariff that represents 46%. Well, Vietnam is effective Cambodia 49% Thailand 37% Malaysia This is precisely because in the first Trump administration would Trump unleash these tariffs a lot of big companies like Walmart to pick an obvious example, but really every company that sells into North American market Well, we don't want to pay all these tariffs to China. Seems like this US-China divorce thing is real.

We better go find another lower wage country. And moreover, Chinese companies moved a lot of investment into places like Vietnam and Cambodia, and they just exported their model to these other countries. In other words, these manufacturers took a side door out of China into their neighboring economies. Exactly. Set up shop there, same problem with trade imbalance. That's right. So thisoring economies. Exactly. Set up shop there, same problem with trade imbalance.

That's right. And so when- So this is meant to catch that. This is meant to catch that and divert production to friendlier places from the Trump administration standpoint. Got it. So the goal, if we think about the focus on Asia, is to make it far more expensive for goods to come from Asia to the United States, thereby discouraging

that trade scenario where all that stuff comes from those places in the first place. That's right. Okay, that's a strategy that I think I can wrap my head around. Natalie, what in your mind is the strategy here for the North American side of that equation? Well, okay, it's not totally clear exactly what the aim is here, but as Peter just said, it sort of seems as though a big motive of these tariffs is to shut down Asia as a source of manufactured goods. And the tariffs that were announced on Wednesday did not include Mexico and Canada.

Right. There is this sense among some of the analysts that I've been talking to that the goal here or at least a potential effect is to strengthen the North American trading bloc. So where do you go if it's not Vietnam or China? You potentially go to Mexico. I mean, obviously Trump's ideal is that you go to the United States. But even if you don't go to the United States, a potential outcome here is that there is more incentive for manufacturers to make their stuff in Mexico, in the United States or in Canada. And there's a potential gain there

for the North American trading block, which is that it gets preferential treatment. We don't know if that's what's gonna happen, but it certainly seems as though, as you said, Michael, the design might lead us there. Now, that's complicated, of course, because of what you're saying is true, that Trump is trying to create a much stronger

North American kind of trading block. He's been going about it in a very strange way, given how much he's been attacking both Mexico and Canada and threatening tariffs on them individually, even before this. So if we're all supposed to be operating as one vast, beloved set of partners, it hasn't been feeling that way. Right. No. For weeks he's been smacking Mexico and Canada in the face.

I mean, there are 25% tariffs that went into effect on Thursday on finished vehicles. We expect the same tariffs to go into effect on auto parts in the beginning of May. There are tariffs on steel and aluminum. That really hits Canada hard and also hits Mexico. There are 25% tariffs on all goods that don't fall within the USMCA, the Free Trade Agreement between the three countries. This is a huge economic burden on these countries and a big, big hit to their trading relationship with the United States. And so it would seem as though this potential world in which the trading bloc of North America is strengthened

also comes with real downsides for the two major trading partners in that arrangement. Mm-hmm. Can I throw a wonky point at you? Sure. So I think it's worth remembering that there's so much integration between the U.S.,

Mexican, Canadian economies that when we buy a finished good for Mexico, something like 30 cents on the dollar, the value of that good, actually made in the United States, you know, with American labor, the counterpart number for China is three cents on the dollar. And Chinese state policy is directed at driving that number as close to zero as possible.

So it's been true, you know, going back to the first Trump administration that if we assume and there are a lot of reasons to debate, you know, what's the real objective? What does Trump really wanna do? Does he just wanna centralize power? Does he want chaos, whatever. But if we take as a given,

just for the sake of this conversation, it's about bringing production back to the United States, generating jobs in the United States. Well, it's always been true that Mexico and Canada are the potential Solution I'm putting in air quotes to our also air quoted China problem And we've gone through a very bewildering couple of months where it seemed like oh no Maybe Mexico is the enemy to the Trump. Oh, maybe we really that's not really the case because you're saying bringing manufacturing back to North America Even if it's Mexico, is more American production and better for the American economy.

By far. It's creating opportunities for Americans. This is starting to make a lot more sense to me. Gina, where does Europe fit into all of this? And what does the US get from hitting our allies in Europe with tariffs? And I'm sure I'm ignorant. What kind of jobs are going to be coming from Europe back to the US in manufacturing? So I think there are several reasons.

I think one is that there are these strategic goals that the Trump administration wants to get Europe to bend on. It wants them to change their digital regulation policies. It wants them to change some of their taxation policies, and so I think the goal is to negotiate on some of that. I think there are also a few key industries that the administration cares about a lot that do matter in Europe. Cars are one of them. We definitely see this desire to reshore the automobile industry, and there are some really big car industries in Europe. think BMW, you know, think the Audis of the world. And so I think in this sort of multi-pronged trade war, Europe is very clearly in the crosshairs

for reasons that are partially trade and economic related and partially actually quite a bit broader than that. I want to pick up on cars and the idea of reshoring. And Natalie and Peter, how realistic is the idea, and it's not just related to Europe, that through these tariffs, the United States is going to be bringing more car manufacturing jobs back to the US. We've talked at length about the fact that cars are made up of component parts assembled all over the world. So this gets really tricky, really fast.

30,000 parts in modern cars. And it's astonishing. I think that cars are the most obvious place to drive the reshoring strategy. So to speak. So to speak, yeah. We will stick you with tariffs if you don't make your stuff in the United States

with a whole bunch of caveats. Let's take a look at a company like Hyundai. This is the group that owns not only Hyundai, the brand, but Kia as well. This is a South Korean company. Right. So they've spent significant amounts of money setting up factories in Georgia,

and they did that with the understanding that they could tap the global supply chain for their parts and components. Now we're telling them you're gonna pay more for steel, more for aluminum, we're telling them you're going to pay more for steel, more for aluminum. We're not sure what is going to apply in terms of tariffs if we're bringing electronics from Malaysia, from China. And so the net effect of this could be, and we don't really know how this will play out,

that Hyundai will say, well, whatever we're going to do, we're going to do it more slowly. Maybe we won't add that extra shift. In the US. Yeah, I mean, you could see the pressure to move faster, to reduce your import of finished cars from Korea, replace that with your domestically made cars, except again, you don't know about your access to the global supply chain. It's not like you can just flip a switch and suddenly all the stuff you need to make a car just comes back to the United States. Right. I just want to recap what you're saying. It's a little bit complicated, very fascinating. A company like Hyundai did exactly what we in the U.S. say we want a company from South

Korea to do. They moved more manufacturing to the U.S. Then we just hit them within the last 48 hours with all these new costs through these tariffs that are going to kind of undermine the fact that they moved here in the first place. Exactly, and so here's this policy that's supposed to be about bringing jobs back to the United States, creating more jobs for blue collar workers. And we've taken aim at some jobs that are already here. We have injected greater anxiety,

added more variables and uncertainty to this large multinational company that did exactly what they were supposed to be doing. Natalie, what Peter is describing is a kind of paralysis that might set in as companies look at these tariffs and fear that consumers are not going to be biting in this moment. Is that something you expect? I mean, I think, you know, we're seeing a lot of uncertainty. That's true.

And uncertainty does cause paralysis. But I think that we have to keep in mind that America is just the most important consumer economy in the world. And companies are already trying to figure out how to secure their duty-free access to that market, you know, as much as they can. And I agree that uncertainty reigns. But I just, I do think that there is a motive now to figure out how to make this work, just because you want to be able to sell to American consumers.

Mm-hmm. Can I complicate that a little bit? Please. Because I actually, I think that is absolutely the case. I think there's also a more complicated dimension here though, which is that I think we're going to see both companies and countries trying to figure out what other markets they might access to replace American consumers. I think we're seeing that a lot in Europe right now.

I think Europe, one of their big strategies for dealing with this very large problem that they have been presented with is to go find new friends. They are just sort of making the rounds, going all around the world, trying to figure out who they can buddy up with to try and make sure that they have a consumer market to sell their products into. I think it was symbolically relevant that Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, was actually in Central Asia talking about trade when this all went down. Okay, well, on that note, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about what retaliation we suspect is going

to look like from all the countries in the regions you all cover against the United States in response to what we have just done with these tariffs. We'll be right back. So, Peter and Gina, Natalie, let's talk about how this is all going to play out over the next few months, specifically in the form of retaliation and the impacts of the retaliation from the countries who've just been hit with these tariffs and are stewing over that and planning to essentially fire back at us. Where should we start? Who feels like they have the best handle on the coming retaliation? Probably Gina does.

Yeah, Gina, go. You're in retaliation land. Yeah, we're in retaliation mode already over here. So we were early movers on the retaliation front. Is it worth saying, Gina, that the European Union is, how big a trading partner is it to the US when we think about the meaning of retaliation? Huge. Enormous. When you think about the EU as a bloc, actually all 27 countries that form it, it is the US's biggest trading partner, essentially.

And when it comes to services, it actually buys a lot more services from the US than it sells into the US. When we say services, what do we mean, just to be clear? When we say services, we mean things like financial services, you know, banking services, but most importantly, we mean technology services. The cloud, the Google searches. And the reason that that's so relevant

is what we've seen so far is that the European Union has very much retaliated by announcing additional tariffs on goods. It is said that it's going to put tariffs on things like whiskey and motorcycles and women's lingerie and a whole list of products. But what we know from our reporting, what we're hearing about from our sources over here is that they are also very much considering slapping some kind of trade barrier on services.

This would really be sort of crossing a Rubicon that the European Union hasn't previously crossed, but it could potentially be really powerful and it could have the real risk of escalating this trade war pretty significantly. What does it look like, this crossed Rubicon? Does that mean they're going to tax our tech? That essentially is what it might mean. So we saw a French official today suggest that this would be some version of a tax on information services, on internet technologies. This is very much the kind of thing that is clearly still under development. They've been trying to keep it under wraps. And so I think we're still waiting for the final actual retaliation to come through to

try and understand exactly what this would look like in real life. Nice little tech economy you got here. Hope nothing happens to it. Exactly. But Peter, can you explain why does that matter when I think of Amazon or meta? These companies getting taxed by Europe wouldn't on its face seem like such a big deal What am I missing because Europe is like the California of the world? It's the one explain market that's big enough that the standards that they said

Affect the nature of business everywhere. Europe's huge. I mean, you're talking about 27 countries that extend from Greece to Ireland. And if Europe, if they start to take a coherent approach to privacy and they start to look at taxation, that will be a significant problem for a very big chunk of the US economy. And that would open up a vast new front in this global trade war. Right.

So you're saying if Europe decides to cut American tech out of Europe, then suddenly the American tech industry is really unhappy and they're probably going to tell President Trump that the tariffs are the reason why. That is effective retaliation. If they threaten access, they threaten new taxes, new regulations, then yes, that could be further force toward business leaders saying, hold on a second, we didn't sign up for this. We signed up for tax cuts and deregulation in business as usual. We didn't sign up for getting kicked out of our potentially largest market on Earth.

Mm-hmm. And I want to just add, I think it's not an accident that Europe is talking about tech in particular. I think it's partially because that industry is so affiliated with the White House right now, because they have been doing this ingratiation exercise, because they've made friends with the Trump White House. Right. And so I think the idea is, if you hit tech, you're hitting X, you're hitting meta, you're potentially hitting these big tech companies that have got CEOs who are really close to

the president. And that might be an effective way to really sort of force the White House to come to the negotiating table, which for Europe is the end goal. Can I just? Go ahead, Natalie. I just want to throw a wrench into things, which is I hear you that it is a well-designed potentially strategy for retaliation, but we just don't know how effective it's going to be because, for example, these tariffs that are hitting the auto manufacturers have been a big deal for a long time now.

These executives are not happy. They have been complaining about it. They've been going to the White House. What we've seen is that Trump has been surprisingly resistant to changing course, even though there have been big reactions on Wall Street and by executives. And so I'm not sure we know that these tech executives kind of going to Trump and complaining is going to really make a difference.

I think that's that's absolutely true. We don't know and in fact, it's not at all clear that There's an appetite amongst business leaders who are afraid to cross MAGA whatever happens tariff stock market falling But but I think it's fair to say that does seem to be part of the European strategy in terms of retaliation. So the typical thing you're retaliating on is you go after bourbon because you hit Mitch McConnell's home state of Kentucky. You go after grains because you hit the upper Midwest and especially red states like Indiana and Nebraska. And so this is taking it to a new set of Trump allies if you go digital. Whether it will work is a whole other question. And I just want to point out that there's another big question here, which is, can they

even do this? You know, it's not like Google has an alternative in Europe. It's not like they have services that can just easily plop in and fill the void that is going to be left by some of these things. And so there's this real risk of how do you design a response that doesn't hurt your own consumer base in a way that makes it almost unsustainable to carry this out. And so it's an untried tool and it's gonna be

really challenging for them to actually use. What's gonna be the retaliation from China and how's that gonna impact American service, Peter? Well, the obvious place China goes is agriculture. They go after American farmers. Yeah I mean China buys a ton of soybeans from the US and they have an alternative and that they can look to South America especially Brazil and Argentina there are other parts of agriculture that would likely get hit as well. Part of the problem for China, and this is something that's been discussed on the show,

is just that because of the trade imbalance between the two countries, China just buys so much less from the United States than it sells, right? So there actually are fewer products for China to put tariffs on than for the US. That's the nature of the very trade imbalance that Trump is trying to address. What you're all outlining here is just a huge dose of uncertainty. And so I want to ask each of you to think about what the best case and the worst case scenario is from these tariffs. Let's call it over the next six months to four years.

I made up that window, but just think big about how this might play out. Okay, best case scenario. We see companies take the hit in terms of their margins, right? So Chinese suppliers, Mexican suppliers say, well, we want to maintain our market share in the US, so we will drop our price to the brands that are buying our stuff, and prices go up a little bit, but not as much as the tariff.

And in the meantime, the overall thrust of the policy works, and more investment comes into the US, builds more factories, we make more stuff in the US, and then eventually the suppliers follow their customers and we're making the peace parts of industry in the US and we get more jobs in four years. That is the rosiest possible picture you can imagine. The worst case scenario is that prices go up

quite dramatically and the result of that is a so-called destruction of demand. You know, oh, you need a car because your old car is getting old. Well, you go off and you see the prices are up quite a bit. The domestic cars on offer are hard to get because there's more demand for that, and that's driving their prices up. And you're hearing horror stories

about how hard it is to fix a car. And so you just defer your purchase and kind of muddle through. And meanwhile, you know, the cost of everything from exercise Clothing to groceries is going up and you say you're buying less and that leads to a good old-fashioned recession where people lose jobs and the the economy slows down and people's living standards decline and and by the way You know the political implications of that are likely to be quite unpleasant. Mm-hmm. Natalie?

So the best case for North America, and specifically for the two trading partners, for Canada and Mexico, is that the tariffs that were already announced that include a lot of goods go away, or at least are significantly reduced, so that there is a seriously preferential treatment to these two countries while Trump does whatever he wants with the rest of the world, so that you see a real strengthening as we talked about of this North American trading bloc, which would hugely benefit all three countries. And you basically keep things the way they've been. Free trade in North America lives.

That's the best case. The worst case is, at least in Mexico, a recession and a really damaging one. I mean, we're talking about a country that depends heavily on trade with the United States. Millions of jobs depend on it. This is not something that can be easily recovered by going to other markets. And so you could really see devastation across the board. We're talking about people potentially, you know, regressing into poverty from the middle class.

Which has serious implications for the US given the border relationship and migration between the two countries, we would presume. Gina? So hopefully I won't be run out of Brussels for saying this, but I think that the best relationship and migration between the two countries, we would presume. Gina? So hopefully I won't be run out of Brussels for saying this, but I think that the best case scenario for Europe could actually be really positive here. I think there's a world in which some sort of negotiated settlement happens fairly quickly. You get some tariffs down on certain products. This is the optimistic, the administration just wants to make a deal scenario.

Trade basically resumes. And in the meantime, Europe has made this whole new friend group, they've expanded the posse. They have really sort of had this moment of sort of standing up and having political will and figuring out how to sort of grow some of their own industries in a world where they thought the US was really going to sort of fade as a trading partner. So they emerge from this a little bit more independent, a little bit stronger. And potentially Europe's economy, which has really been in the doldrums for years, now has this extra impetus for innovation. And, you know, particularly coming from some of the manufacturing stuff tied to defense that's happening right now. But I think there's a positive outcome here. I think there's also an extremely negative scenario,

which is they get locked in a sort of tit for tat retaliation where both sides are just escalating, hoping that somebody finally blinks, but it takes a really long time for that to happen. And in the process, Europeans are facing much more expensive products. They're facing lack of access to services. They are watching companies really do layoffs

because they are no longer able to sell into the American market. And that would all be extremely painful at a moment where Europe is already struggling economically and already feeling a little bit isolated. We've already had Brexit. Russia has obviously taken a much more aggressive and much less friendly tone

toward the West in general. I think we could end up in a really bad place where they are in a really unfortunate position and potentially dealing with a big influx of cheap goods from China all at the same time. Did you want to say something, Peter? Yeah, I just want to add that think about the last great shock that we experienced globally, the pandemic. COVID.

And we ended up with shortages of goods. We ended up discovering that our supply chains were not very resilient and a lot of confusion, right? It was hard to get stuff on container ships. In the US, our railroad system couldn't handle it. We supposedly ran out of truck drivers. Our warehouses got all messed up. And I think you wrote a whole book about this.

I wrote a whole book about it. It's called How the World Ran Out of Everything. It's out of the global supply chain. And you know, this is this is a you write a book, you get to say it. This is a self-inflicted shock. This is a similar set of unknowns where we are asking virtually every large company on earth to take a look at where they're buying and selling their stuff and think about moving it around absorbing very quickly a dramatic change to the terms of trade and we don't know what's going to happen but we know that the last time we had a big shock, it was extremely disruptive. It was traumatic.

It was traumatic. And that's the gamble that the president has just made. That's the gamble that the president is telling us he is making. The president is telling us that if we go through this period of pain, we will come out the other end much stronger with many more jobs. But so much would have to go right for that to pan out. And we know that immediately what we're looking at is enormous chaos and upheaval.

Well, on that note, I'm going to thank you all. Peter, thank you. Thanks very much, Michael. Gina, thank you. Thank you. Natalie, always a pleasure. It is always a pleasure, Michael. On Thursday, the German automaker Volkswagen told car dealers that it would add an import

fee to the price of cars sold in the United States. It was one of the first and clearest examples so far of President Trump's new tariffs turning into price increases for American consumers. We'll be right back. turning into price increases for American consumers. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. President Trump has fired six officials from the National Security Council after an extraordinary meeting in the Oval Office with the far-right activist Laura Loomer, who laid out a list of people that she believes were disloyal to the president.

The sequence of events suggests that Loomer, who has floated the baseless conspiracy theory that the September 11 attacks were an inside job, is now wielding more influence over the staff of the National Security Council than the cabinet officials who officially oversee them. Today's episode was produced by Will Reed and Moudzadeh. It was edited by Maria Byrne, Paige Cowitt, and Lisa Chow. Contains original music by Dan Powell, Diane Wong, and Marian Lozano. And was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly. That's it for the Daily.

I'm Michael Boulogne. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Boulogne. See you on Monday.